the only way galbraith ever gets anything right is by accident. man's writings are a waste of ink and paper.

Even by his own lights Galbraith gets things backwards, since he's writing as a moralist, which one would presume has no place inside a Darwinian framework. For example : They still teach the "marginal product theory of wages," which excuses every gross inequality faced by the laboring poor. What's a champion of economics as a science doing pronouncing that sort of value judgement?

*sigh*

Capitalist economic systems work without a central planning hub because the individual actors within it are, themselves, intelligent. The seeming intelligence of the market is a byproduct (epiphenomenon?) of the intelligence of the components. It is emergent, unforseen behavior. The central problem of central planners is that they are unable to forsee unanticipated emergent behavior (I.e. welfare).

ptah:

Where?

Everywhere. And nowhere, since moralists of every stripe can't restrain the itch to improve. Smith's lesson isn't that there's no plan, it's that unless you are God the most important thing about planning is to know when to stop. Of course Orrin's no better disposed to absorb that lesson than Galbraith is.

joe:

Establishing conditions favorable to capitalism is a central plan.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html

Nations tolerably well advanced as to skill, dexterity, and judgment, in the application of labour, have followed very different plans in the general conduct or direction of it; and those plans have not all been equally favourable to the greatness of its produce. The policy of some nations has given extraordinary encouragement to the industry of the country; that of others to the industry of towns. Scarce any nation has dealt equally and impartially with every sort of industry. Since the downfal of the Roman empire, the policy of Europe has been more favourable to arts, manufactures, and commerce, the industry of towns; than to agriculture, the industry of the country. The circumstances which seem to have introduced and established this policy are explained in the Third Book.
I.I.7

Though those different plans were, perhaps, first introduced by the private interests and prejudices of particular orders of men, without any regard to, or foresight of, their consequences upon the general welfare of the society; yet they have given occasion to very different theories of political œconomy;*10 of which some magnify the importance of that industry which is carried on in towns, others of that which is carried on in the country. Those theories have had a considerable influence, not only upon the opinions of men of learning, but upon the public conduct of princes and sovereign states. I have endeavoured, in the Fourth Book, to explain, as fully and distinctly as I can, those different theories, and the principal effects which they have produced in different ages and nations.
I.I.8

To explain*11 in what has consisted the revenue of the great body of the people, or what has been the nature*12 of those funds, which, in different ages and nations, have supplied their annual consumption, is the object of*13 these Four first Books. The Fifth and last Book treats of the revenue of the sovereign, or commonwealth. In this book I have endeavoured to show; first, what are the necessary expences of the sovereign, or commonwealth; which of those expences ought to be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society; and which of them, by that of some particular part only, or of some particular members of it:*14 secondly, what are the different methods in which the whole society may be made to contribute towards defraying the expences incumbent on the whole society, and what are the principal advantages and inconveniencies of each of those methods: and, thirdly and lastly, what are the reasons and causes which have induced almost all modern governments to mortgage some part of this revenue, or to contract debts, and what have been the effects of those debts upon the real wealth, the annual produce of the land and labour of the society.*15

Of course it is. But those conditions are quite simple, as Smith himself pointed out:

Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.

That doesn't leave either you or Galbraith with very much to do except sit on your hands, and we know how well that agrees with your constitution.

Galbraith's fundamental mistake is that markets don't yield the best result, but the best feasible result. While it's easy to imagine results superior to what the market achieves, it's not possible to actually implement them in the real world.

More fundamental is that the market is Created.

The market is created, in the same way that the natural selection model explains evolution; through the interations of independent actors, each acting in their own best interests, that form a complex ecosystems that change over time, in which we can find patterns.
Thus, in order for the logic of the invisible hand theory of the free market to be feasible, there has to be some over-looking being that is somehow directly this system in a way that is fair to all.
The decentering implications of natural selection is very dangerous to many of you, (well namely OJ) because it threatens to undermine the fairness of the capitalist world order; so intelligent design had to be invented in order to transpose the success of the invisible hand explanation of economics into being consistent with evolutionary biology.
How does a system of institutionalized slavery, with the slave-owner acting in what he sees to be his best self-interest, contribute to better the overal condition of the slaves he owns? When these actors aren't free to act in their self-interest, or when they don't equate the interests of other with that of themselves, then how can this theory justify itself?

Who created the market, and when was it created?

The markets Smith wrote about were created, rejiggered, adminstered, and driven by millions of daily selections by the peoples and governments of Great Britain.

Grog:

Your description of natural selection is centering, not de-centering and I agree with it absolutely. Evolution works just like capitalism.

Slavery was a tremendous boon to African-Americans, but that doesn't justify it.

creeper:

The market is created when society enforces peace and property rights.

when society

I have to side with OJ that "the market" is in fact the creation of human intelligence. A good book to read on this subject is The Mystery of Capital by Hernando De Soto.

However, drawing the analogy to the physical universe pushes one toward a Spinozan God rather than an interventionist one, which I'm not sure is the result OJ would prefer.

AOG:

I'm not sure there is a difference once we posit omniscience. The distinction between a watchmaker God and continual creation may be an artifact of an inside-the-universe temporal perspective, rather than an essential difference.

I'm not sure how much hope we have of reasoning sensibly about that sort of thing, though...

Let's not posit omniscience when we talk about economic systems. They're made by fallible humans, who need to remember when to stop creating and designing and when to start trucking and bartering. By the way, Grog: I've decided to purchase you. Please provide the name and address of your owner (this would be your current employer, I presume) so that we can make all the arrangements. I'm planning either to put you back to work at your current occupation, or execute you by firing squad and sell your organs to the highest bidder, depending on the results of your medical examination. Thanks in advance.

OJ: Natural selection, and the rest of evolutionary theory, is decentering, unless you view the entire earth and its ecosystems as a center, which I think is possible.
It is also conceivably centering when you consider that all life on earth has the same origins.
It is also centering when you think that the energy that has driven all life from its beginning has its source in the sun.
So the terms centering and decentering mean very little to me; its a matter of perspective that always changes.
However, to insist upon a force that is outside and beyond human observation, a metaphysical eye that intervenes, ensures the morality of both natural and economic systems, is to transcribe invented human qualities with a political motive onto systems that operate wholly outside the realm of human the realm of morality, goodness, and values. To pretend there is a hand that ensures the idealistic functioning of the invisible hand, and a god that created human superiority, is not harmful in itself; but the policies that faiths justify are.

Grog:

There's no pretending about it--the system you adhere to is centered in intelligent design, as it must be: "the interations of independent actors, each acting in their own best interests"

OJ: if you want to see it as such, yes. But it is not a single intelligence that is acting; it is the interacting free wills of multiple intelligences. You are the one making the connection to a force outside and beyond these actors, who you call God.
But I don't believe your guarantee that your God is over-looking the free-market and ensuring that system eventually works itself out to be fair in all. It is human responsibility to make it such, and yours and others belief in God should not be used as a political rational to reduce the interference of government into economic and business practices. It is the function of government and the people who run it to tackle these problems, not God.

Orrin,

You make a big fuss about instances of intelligent design, but under your heading of 'Darwinism' this is nothing more than a strawman, unless you can explain how the existence of intelligent design stands in relation to Intelligent Design, or in any way negates the theory of evolution.

Or have you simply given up on ID and have chosen to retreat to defending something that nobody is questioning - the mere existence of intelligent design, not Intelligent Design?

The so-called Invisible Hand is the result of the self-organizing nature of the free market, not some all-seeing centrally planning intelligence.

Grog:

Yes, you believe in ID, not Creation.

creeper:

"instances of intelligent design"

If there were any instances of Darwinism you'd make a big deal of them.

Instances of intelligent design tell us nothing either pro or con about either Intelligent Design or the theory of evolution, because mere intelligent design is compatible with both the notion of Intelligent Design and the theory of evolution. That's why I'm puzzled why you drag such examples into this discussion. Are you genuinely confused about the difference between intelligent design and Intelligent Design? Do you perhaps believe that human beings are divine, and our actions amount to acts of God?

What do you mean by "instances of Darwinism"? Examples of evolution? There are so many, and so widely accepted, that no, I wouldn't make a big deal of them.

"Yes, you believe in ID, not Creation."

If you look at Grog's comments, you will see that this is truly conflating intelligent design and Intelligent Design, which are two different concepts.

creeper:

Neither of which is compatible with Darwinism and only the most jesuitical can differentiate I.D. from i.d..

creeper:

There are none as your systematic refusal to name even one amply demonstrates, after having the few you mistakenly used to believe in shot down, like peppered moths and finches.

Yes, humans partake of the divine because made in His Image which is why our own intelligent designs so nearly resemble His evolution.

That's what Darwin noticed but then he bungled by trying to remove intelligence from the process.

intelligent design: an instance of something made by an intelligent creature, such as a car, a hammer, a computer, a symphony.

Intelligent Design: the notion that an intelligent entity created the universe and life on Earth.

It doesn't take anything jesuitical to be able to understand that simple difference in definition.

One could say that "Intelligent Design" is a subset of "intelligent design" (albeit only in theory, since we are not able to verify it via observation or testing).

See, that wasn't so hard.